Jump to content

Kinetic energy of a nucleus


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

Take a waveform. A long sinusiodal wave has no determinant length.

A spike or excitation restores to ground state in a finite region. Thats your pointlike Compton wavelength where the pointlike property becomes meaningless beyond.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Take a waveform. A long sinusiodal wave has no determinant length.

A spike or excitation restores to ground state in a finite region. Thats your pointlike Compton wavelength where the pointlike property becomes meaningless beyond.

Mordred, the world is not just a construction of waves?

 

And a string is cited as a spatially-extended object?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, things like me and you only appear solid, because when objects tend to push together, electrostatic interactions push back. Gives things solidity on our level, but is really a composite system of much more complicated decohered systems owing their existence to entanglement and properties like the zeno effect in which evolution of wave functions do not happen. 

Though a misnomer, I do believe in wave particle duality, I prefer to call it, wave particle complimentarity. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

The wave particle duality as seen in the double slit experiment shows that the particle is not always a wave, so this idea that waves is all there is means nothing to me, sorry. 

It's been suggested I am not posting mainstream science and I have contacted through the appropriate channels. Strange how I am being accused of being outside mainstream when I am posting quotes from other places which support this idea that rotation is a real property so long as there are internal degree's of freedom - by the way, I already said this had gone off topic when we started discussing ''my opinions'' on particles, yet I am shafted in the open even though I was somewhat baited into those discussions by Swansont. My original reply here stays, a nucleus can rotate and will have a rotational kinetic energy, anything that classical rotates, uses energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those whom it may concern, do not bother to try and tackle Dubbelosix's comments with the hopes of getting a response, as he has been banned a few hours ago.

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

Read that Hobbs paper again. It literally means there is no corpuscular (solid) property to a particle. The paper deals directly with the particle/wave duality.

I forgot to add the De-Broglie wavelength which applies to massive particles.

I was under the impression that the De-Broglie can theoretically apply to all particles regardless of their respective mass? Or are you saying that it is unlikely we'd witness any such wave-like behaviour unless the particle is massive?

See equation: y (Lambda) = h (Planck's constant) / mv (momentum), mass is a variable however there is seemingly no limit, except of course it must be greater than zero.

Edited by DeoxyRiboRobert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here De-Broglie waves of matter waves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Note the reference to wave particle duality

Then note the cutoff reference between the Compton and De-Brogle here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

In other words I should have more careful to make the distiction in the first place. However I was thinking of other questions Dubbelosix was asking on spin. So a little distracted, by his other questions

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.